Steve Biddulph discusses the results of a childcare "experiment" from Canada.

[Astrophe]

here, in the Sydney Morning Herald

Yes, but I think his focus is partly wrong. For example, he does mention Sweden in some articles as an example. He says that because the various childfriendly policies in Sweden (like long paid mat and pat leave) hardly any babies in Sweden are in daycare. This is partly true. I don't know if nurseries even accept children under the age of 12 months. However, most parents have returned to work and child in nursery by 18 months. He makes it sound like Swedish children don't go to nursery when the opposite is true. Its just that they are a lot higher standard etc etc. I am sure if you compared a child from the UK and a child from Scandinavia who had both attended nursery you might find differences. The differences I think would be more likely to be due to higher care in Sweden, better life/work balance very generally speaking, much much less guilt from parents when it comes to going out to work and less stress filtering through to the children etc. I think there are so many variables here and he is too simplistic. Also he would not sell as many books if he was just fighting for longer maternity and paternity leave, flexible working, better quality childcare etc.

I also find it disgusting that he implies that the higher level of young people needing treatment for mental health problems is due to more children attending nurseries. There is no study on this. He is guessing at reasons. There is no study actually saying the majority of the children with mental health problems had a working mother.

the negative aspects of external childcare for the under-3's are only seen when the hours exceed 30. (NB recounting that from memory).

I think Biddulph has a lot of valid points but I do find him very preachy and condeming of working parents, which I don't think is helpful.

I have friends in Stockholm and babies just don't go to nursery before 12 months, but mums do tend to go back FT. However, the social dynmaic is different. Outside work/nursery, families spend a lot more time 'hanging out' together. In the UK, there's more TV watching.

In Canada (I lived in Vancouver for a while), parents can take a combined total of 12 months leave. Phillipino nannies are unbelievably popular. The types of nurseries that we use in the UK are very unpopular, and friends certainly regarded them as a low quality childacre choice.

Leave off SB then, and read the links to the actual article.

I see why its unpopular. But if the research is right (and it does have some fairly significant findings, whichever way you look at it), then parents have a right to know, and a responsibility to act (and to put pressure on the government).

According to the study, the standard of care in the Canadian nurseries was high - many lower standard nurseries were closed to make way for better ones, and yet still the results were dire.

I am 100% behind the notion of parents being paid a 'wage' to care for their own children at home. This isn't about demonising WOHMs, its about giving women a real choice in how their young children are cared for.

Capitalism has stuck under the cape of feminism and has effectively removed this choice for so many families, who just can't afford to have one parent at home, even if they want to.

i just don't buy this.
if the nursery sucks, don't send your kids there.
find childcare you are happy with. it takes a long time as my nick name suggests i have had to find out.
i don't think you should lay off SB
SB IS responsible for constantly putting scare stories in the press and his only motivation can be that he gets paid well for it. because, as i mentioned before, the only thing that matters is the quality of the parent-child relationship which he chooses not to focus on, enjoying instead, whipping up a daily mail style frenzy of fear.

agree with marina on this

SB has his own agenda, as do people like Oliver James

pah

Don't like SB at all. The things he writes are designed to make well-off people feel smug and those who have no choice but to work feel anxious. Daily Mail nonsense. Agree with workstostaysane that choice of nursery is key. But also some of the stuff he highlights eg. 'nursery kids get sick more' can actually be a good thing, as long as the illnesses themselves aren't life-threatening. Because by the time a nursery kid gets to primary school their immune system will kick ass, having met every bug going already. And I suspect that my DS is more aggressive for being at nursery (has been known to bite/scratch ), but he's also more assertive & socially confident amongst his peers than the non-nursery kids I've observed. There are pluses & minuses, and we all try to do what is right for our kids, and high income WAHDs have no right to judge me & mine. Humph.

I agree with astrophe when she says
But if the research is right (and it does have some fairly significant findings, whichever way you look at it), then parents have a right to know, and a responsibility to act (and to put pressure on the government).
Just because some people don't like what they are hearing doesn't mean it shouldn't be written about or looked into more.

I quite like SB too. He talks sense most of the time(although nobody is perfect so I won't be too gushing in my praise).

I know some of what he says it unpalatable for those who have to work and don't have a choice in their child care but the research seems to be converging on the idea that nursery care is OK for up to 16 hours a week and after that it may (I say may not will before anybody says it didn't do them any harm) become problematic and the problems will be greater the younger the child is.

Surely nobody can argue with the need to continue research on how to balance the economic and family needs of society.

I hardly think he is stirring up a 'frenzy of fear' - what an alarmist thing to say! He isn't saying mothers should stay at home or children will irreversibly damaged. He is saying extend parental leave which strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

Nor is he the only one doing research in this area and getting these results as other links have shown.

"Just because some people don't like what they are hearing doesn't mean it shouldn't be written about or looked into more."

Couldn't agree more, Juule. Just because something is unpalatable to some people is no reason to let society bury its head in the sands and not research further to see whether we can collectively come up with better information and, from there, work towards better solutions for everyone.

I am currently enjoying (and my goodness, I am enjoying it) a year of paid mat leave at 67% of average pay over previous 12 months, courtesy of Germany. As FairyMum says, though, when they run out a lot of children go to nursery. We will be coming to some arrangement with me (I'm lucky enough to only have to go back PT)/dh/CM. ds1 is 2.8 and has just started (and is loving ) kindergarten. dh and I split care between us with him - we were lucky to have that flexibility, but paid for it in other ways.

It gets my back up incredibly when people who have a WIFE (as MP so aptly puts it) moralise to others. harpsi, he might be addressing it at the policy level, which is certainly no bad thing, but the way he goes about it is IMO questionable. There is incredible potential for great pain and worry tied up in this whole question.

BTW, the Germans introduced this year at 67% not out of concern for families, but explicitly (the govt said as much) to bump up the languishing birthrate among qualified and middle-class people.

SB states in his book that it is better that a child should not go to nursery at all before the age of 2.

' i know some of what he says it unpalatable for those who have to work and don't have a choice in their child care but the research seems to be converging on the idea that nursery care is OK for up to 16 hours a week and after that it may....become problematic and the problems will be greater the younger the child is. "

its not unpalatable, its just hopeless if not placed in context. its like saying most street crime is committed by black men
(which is true) without saying that most of that crime is executed on other black men. you do create a frenzy of fear becuase you are looking to excite emotion in a part of the population which has very very little to fear or worry about.
if you have decent childcare and give a toss about your kids, you're more than likely doing just fine.

most kids are murdered by family members FGS. NOT by the childminder, but steve ain;t writing about that becuase there's no money in it.

WTSS So are you saying that SB is making it all up just to write a book to make money?

(I have no idea what the connection with the crime thing is)

I agree with WSS that his main purpose is to make money and he will 'target' anything he does to raise his book sales. Also, you don't get paid for a column in the SMH if you tell them 'I'm not going to say anything sensationalist', so in order to sell this article he's promised them something that will get people talking and clearly delivered it... If he was a child therapist doing only medicaid cases I'd have a lot more faith in his impartiality!

are you honestly shocked at a one to five ratio for nursery age children?
that isn't any different really than the UK. for the over threes, the ratio is one to eight over here.

when I say "lay off SB", by the way, its not because I a in love with him, but just that he is not really the issue here. He didn't do the research. So if you hate him, read the research and ignore him.

Honestly though, can anyone argue that it would not be a great thing (for parents and children alike) to have the option of being paid to care for your own children for 3 or 4 years?

Surely it is an ideal have you child with you for the first two years though?
Not realistic for everyone of course but I surely we read these books for experts opinions?

HC, I'm certainly shocked by it - I work (ok, ish) in a nursery, we are mostly 1:4 (some under-2s, but not many, some over-3s) and that works fine at this age, but 1:5 for babies is insane imo.

I'm sure lots of nurseries suck here too (I've visited some), but the neglect I see, in parks, in public (so how are they treating these kids in the nursery?), every bloody summer, depresses the hell out of me.

steve biddulph is negative about childcare for the under threes because unless it is consistent one on one care (which can of course be paid for) is is NOT as good, some would argue not good per se for the infants.

over 3 is different story. but please please don't call biddulph 'hostile' to daycare when in fact he is merely reflecting research which suggests that it is not a good idea.

yes I think the dissing of SB is bit shoot the messenger tbh.
it is possible, isn't it, that Steve Biddulph's motivation is the welfare of parents and children? based on his experience? to accuse him of being motivated by the need to bully and solely to make moeny is rather uncalled for tbh and I can't see any justification for it, other than you don't like what he has to say. he does have a pretty impressive record of involvement in social issues and campaigning

from his website:

"Steve brings background in working with high need families, working with Vietnam veterans and emergency services, a specialist practice in the care of rape, trauma and abuse victims, directorship of the Collinsvale Centre training therapists and counsellors, and a consultancy worldwide in making schools more boy-effective. Today he divides his time between campaigning and speaking worldwide to parents, and involvement in social justice and environmental issues in his own country Australia.

"He has raised almost a quarter of a million dollars in the past three years for human rights campaigns and assistance to refugee families and children mistreated in Australian government detention centres, which have been the subject of widespread criticism and concern among health and child welfare professionals. In particular, Steve co-leads and funds the SievX National Memorial Project, to remember, and help the victims of this tragedy in which 300 refugee mothers and children died under suspicious circumstances on a vessel trying to reach safety in Australia."

money grabbing bastard, eh?

and I am not sure why the possession of a wife disqualifies him from comment? can't men have an opinion on issues to do with children? his children are much older than nursery age and he seems to have played an active role in bringing them up.

NQC, those sort of ratios would be very unusual in a nursery setting

minimum adult/staff ratios in UK:

under twos: 3:1.
two-year-olds: 4:1
three and over: 8:1

Yes, yes, I know the ratios here - we follow them at nursery here.

I think the poor ratios in Canadian nurseries might be one reason why such bad effects were observed from nusery care.

yes I agree harosi-he has done lots of good work in counselling the most needy families, too so I don't see why his motivation should be too make well off parents feel smug.
I don't think because people disagree with this one idea of his you should dismiss his motives as money grabbing.

I am not sure I follow you NQC
if the ratios are the same as here, then the results are surely relevant here too?

these arguments drive me nuts.

it is fucking unpalatable (not to say guilt inducing and hate inducing) to be told that somehting you have done or are considering doing might not be for the best for your kids.

so. what do you do? attack the person saying it? ignore it and hope it goes away? cry: no fair, we couldn't help it?

OR

do you do something to change a government policy that ONLY encourages it?

do you invest massively in childminding and lobby for a policy that DOES give working parents the real flexibility to care for their children at home. do you change the law so that being penalised for having worked flexibly or taken time off to care for children just isn't feasible for employers anymore?

oh, i know, lets just trash biddulph cause that will help.

ffs.

(Hijack - NQC, did you get message from me on facebook?)